JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This is an appeal by the guardian ad litem of three minors, who are practically entitled to the whole of the estate of one Troylucko Nath Biswas, deceased, to have two orders of Mr. Justice Sale, dated, respectively, 2nd May and 7th June 1905, appointing the Administrator-General of Bengal, administrator de bonis non, with a copy of the Will annexed to the estate of the said Troylucko Nath Biswas during the minority of two of the minors, Nrittya Gopal Biswas and Mohun Gopal Biswas discharged. The testator, Troylucko Nath Biswas, died on the 28th December 1904, leaving property estimated at between 30 and 40 lacs in value, and, by his Will, dated 27th October 1904, after providing for certain annuities, he, in effect, gave the whole of his property to his three sons, Brojo Gopal Biswas, Nrittya Gopal Biswas and Mohun Gopal Biswas in certain shares. The Will contained this clause : "If my second son Sreeman Brojo Gopal Biswas die before my youngest son Sreeman Mohun Gopal Biswas attains majority, which God forbid, then my third son Sreeman Nrittya Gopal Biswas, and on his demise my youngest son Sreeman Mohun Gopal Biswas will be the executor and trustee, and do all acts as stated in the Will. If any executor and trustee being of age, be unable or unwilling to carry on the duties, or be a minor, my estate will remain in charge of the Court of Wards." 2. Brojo Gopal Biswas attained his majority, and on the 24th March 1905, probate of his father's Will was granted to him. He, however, died on the 14th April 1905, leaving a widow Sreematy Sindhubala Dassee, who is a minor and who is represented on the present occasion by Sreenarain Dass Santra as her guardian ad litem. Brojo Gopol died intestate, leaving his abovenamed widow and two minor daughters him surviving. On the day of his death, Babu Benode Behary Banerjee, a member of the firm of Messrs. Banerjee & Haldar, the Attorneys of the present Appellants, who had acted as the Attorney of the family of the deceased testator, saw the Collector of the 24-Pergunnahs, explained to him the position of affairs and asked the Collector under sec. 29 of the Court of Wards Act, to take immediate charge of the estate, and to refer the matter to the Board of Revenue. 3. 29 of the Court of Wards Act, to take immediate charge of the estate, and to refer the matter to the Board of Revenue. 3. On the 17th April, Babu Gonesh Chunder Chunder, an Attorney of this Court, accompanied by a member of the Bar, went to see the Collector of the 24-Pergunnahs. Whether he was then acting on behalf of the Administrator-General of Bengal or of Sreematy Sindhubala Dassee, the minor widow of Brojo Gopal Biswas or of Chundy Churn Chowdhury and Guru Dass Biswas, to whom I shall refer later on, is perhaps not very clear. These gentlemen stated, in effect, to the Collector that the Administrator-General had been moved by the widow, who was then, in fact, a minor to apply to the High Court for letters of administration. The Collector was told that the widow was unwilling to be placed under the charge of the Court of Wards, and she was represented as being of full age, and as about to make an affidavit. The statement that the widow was of age was untrue. She was admittedly a minor. The Collector, however, thought that this was a case in which he was entitled to act under sec. 29 of the Court of Wards Act, and a Deputy Collector was deputed to take possession of the moveable property belonging to the estate, and it was stated that the Deputy Collector with the lady legal adviser to the Court of Wards would go to the family dwelling-house the next day and take possession of the property. 4. I refer to the order passed by Mr. Bernard, the Collector of the 24-Pergunnahs, on the 17th April 1905. It is clear from this that Babu Gonesh Chunder Chunder was perfectly aware that the Collector, as he was entitled to do, intended to take possession of the moveable property of the deceased on the following day. 5. On the 18th April, the Collector, Mr. Bernard, with the Deputy Collector, went to the family dwelling-house of the deceased to take charge of the moveable property left in the house under sec. 29 of the Court of Wards Act. He found the Administrator-General already there, attended by Babu Gonesh Chunder Chunder and others. The Administrator-General said that he was taking charge of the property, and, in consequence, the Collector retired. What right Mr. 29 of the Court of Wards Act. He found the Administrator-General already there, attended by Babu Gonesh Chunder Chunder and others. The Administrator-General said that he was taking charge of the property, and, in consequence, the Collector retired. What right Mr. Hyde had to go to this house and take possession of the property, especially when he knew, as he must have known, that the Collector was going there on the very same day to take possession acting under sec. 29 of the Court of Wards Act, has not been explained. I am glad to say that no attempt was made by Mr. Hyde's Counsel to explain or justify his action. It was at once illegal and unbecoming and Mr. Bernard, who was acting within his strict legal rights, rather than see, as I presume, an unseemly conflict between two officers of the Government, very properly withdrew. 6. On the 27th April, Sree Narain Dass Santra, the maternal grandfather of the minor sons of the deceased testator, as their natural guardian and next friend, applied to the Board of Revenue to take charge of the estate in pursuance of the 7th Cl. of the Will. On the same date Mr. Hyde, the Administrator-General, himself presented a petition to this Court asking that letters of administration might be granted to him until the two minor sons of the testator attained their majority. The ground for presenting that petition is based upon a letter, dated 17th April 1905, addressed to Mr. Hyde by the infant Sreematy Sindhubala Dassee asking him to apply for letters of administration. That letter was, presumably, prepared by Babu Gonesh Chunder Chunder. In that letter, she is made to say, for she is apparently illiterate and signed with her mark, that she had attained majority, and asked that immediate possession of the moveable property might be taken. She is a minor, a purdanashin lady, and she never ought to have been allowed to write such a letter. She is supported in this letter by the widow of the eldest son of the testator. She apparently is of age, but her interest in this large estate is of the most limited description, namely, that of a small annuitant. It was very wrong that this minor purdanashin lady was allowed to put her mark to this letter and to make the affidavit which she subsequently did. She apparently is of age, but her interest in this large estate is of the most limited description, namely, that of a small annuitant. It was very wrong that this minor purdanashin lady was allowed to put her mark to this letter and to make the affidavit which she subsequently did. Neither the letter nor the affidavit could have been her own. It is said that Mr. Hyde and Babu Gonesh Chunder Chunder thought she was of age. There is nothing to show what enquiries they made to substantiate this. 7. Then two other persons appear on the scene--Chundi Churn Chowdhury and Guru Dass Biswas. They write to Mr. Hyde on the 17th April, and Mr. Hyde gets the letter on the 18th; they write as the next friends, that is to say, self-constituted next friends of the two minor (sic)s. They ask Mr. Hyde to apply for (sic)btain letters of administration, and to take immediate possession of the moveable property. They claim to be paternal relatives of these minor sons. They certainly had no right to constitute themselves the next friends of the minors for an application of this nature. It is clear, both from their own evidence and from what is stated in para. 21 of Sreenarain Santra's affidavit of the 1st May 1905, that their interests were adverse to those of the minors. The statement in that paragraph is not challenged or denied. It is perhaps not difficult to surmise who suggested these letters. It will be noticed that there is no allegation in Mr. Hyde's application that there were any debts of the testator and the statement that the Court of Wards would not take charge of the estate is not very ingenuous. The evidence shows that the Board was perfectly prepared to accept the management of the estate if the High Court so directed. When Mr. Hyde presented his petition on the 27th April, the Collector had previously tried to take possession, but had been practically stopped by the former. 8. As regards the debts, when the eldest son applied for probate of his father's estate, he said there were no debts. Srikant Mandal's evidence as to there being debts is flimsy, and unreliable; his evidence as to the income of the zamindari is very misleading and untrue. 9. Mr. Hyde's petition was ex parte. The present Appellants' solicitors only heard of it by chance. Srikant Mandal's evidence as to there being debts is flimsy, and unreliable; his evidence as to the income of the zamindari is very misleading and untrue. 9. Mr. Hyde's petition was ex parte. The present Appellants' solicitors only heard of it by chance. They happened to be present in Court and heard the application made. They at once instructed Counsel then and there to tell the Court that an application had been made to the Board of Revenue to take charge of the estate. But for this accident the order would probably have been made ex parte, on the footing that the minor widow was of age, and that Chundi Churn Chowdhury and Guru Dass Biswas were proper next friends of the minor sons. On the same day the solicitors of grandfather asked for a copy of the petition on the usual terms, but they were told by Babu Gonesh Chunder Chunder that he was unable to furnish them with a copy. This is quite unusual. 10. On the 28th April 1905, the Appellants' attorneys filed a caveat against the grant of letters of administration to Mr. Hyde, and on the 29th obtained an office copy of the petition. The matter then came before Mr. Justice Sale on the 2nd May, and on that day he made one of the orders complained of, namely, appointing Mr. Hyde Administrator pendente lite. The Appellants say that the Court ought not, in the circumstances, to have made any such order. 11. On 17th May 1905, Sreenarain Dass Santra, as I have already said, was appointed guardian ad litem, not only of the minor sons of the testator, but also of the minor widow of the deceased son, for the purpose of defending the present proceedings. It is thus clear that Chundi Churn Chowdhury and Guru Dass Biswas, who set Mr. Hyde in motion, affecting to be the next friends of the minor sons, had no authority to represent the minors any way on the hearing of the petition. On the 7th June, a further order was made granting letters of administration to Mr. Hyde, and the question is, whether, in the circumstances stated, these orders can properly stand. All the minors, practically entitled to the whole of the estate, have appealed. None of the beneficiaries support the order. It is clear what the wishes of the testator were. On the 7th June, a further order was made granting letters of administration to Mr. Hyde, and the question is, whether, in the circumstances stated, these orders can properly stand. All the minors, practically entitled to the whole of the estate, have appealed. None of the beneficiaries support the order. It is clear what the wishes of the testator were. The event has happened upon which he desired that the Court of Wards should be in charge of the estate. Whatever attitude may have been taken by Mr. Hyde in the Court of first instance, it is only fair to him to say that he now, through his Counsel, submits to act as the Court may direct, but submits that it was and is necessary to have some administrator to administer the testator's estate. This does not necessarily involve that ho should be appointed when all the beneficiaries oppose. He submits, and I think properly, that the Court of Wards, as such, cannot administer the estate, and, cannot, as such, be appointed Administrator. There is nothing, however, to prevent this Court, in circumstances such as the present, if, as the testator wished the minors' estate to be entrusted to the Court of Wards, from appointing the nominee of such Court (in most instances the manager) Administator of the testator's estate with the Will annexed under sec. 31 of the Probate and Administration Act. But is there really any estate to administer in the proper sense of the term ? Debts, we must take it upon the evidence, there are none, and the legacies, as we understand, are mere annuities payable out of income. These can certainly be paid by the Court of Wards. There is, therefore, nothing to administer in the true sense of the term. If, later on, it be found necessary to bring actions to recover debts due to the testator's estate, and the Court of Wards cannot do this, the manager, or some other nominee of such Court would be appointed administrator. The whole estate practically belongs to the minor Appellants subject to some small annuities which can be adequately dealt with by the Court of Wards. The expense of appointing the Administrator-General of Bengal is very heavy, if the estate be worth 40 lakhs of rupees, as it is said to be. We are told his initial commission would amount to some 1,20,000 rupees. The expense of appointing the Administrator-General of Bengal is very heavy, if the estate be worth 40 lakhs of rupees, as it is said to be. We are told his initial commission would amount to some 1,20,000 rupees. The Court ought to be very careful before encumbering the estates of minors with so heavy, and, at present, apparently an unnecessary charge. It must be taken that the application is opposed by all the minors, by their guardian-ad litem, they being the parties practically taking the whole estate. It is difficult to say why the Administrator-General, in these circumstances, should have put himself forward as he did. Admittedly his application is based upon secs. 31 and 32 of the Probate Act, but I think be was unwise to make the application himself. It would have been better if he had allowed some of the beneficiaries to come and ask for his appointment and submitted to act, if the Court so ordered. By applying himself he creates an impression of partisanship which ought to be avoided. He can be in no better position than if the application for his appointment had been made by the minor widow or by the two persons, Chundi Churn Chowdhury and Guru Dass Biswas, who affected to act for the minor sons. If the application had been made by the former on the footing that she was of age, it must have failed on the discovery that she was a minor. If it had been made by the men I have named as next friends of the minor sons, it would have failed upon the ground that they were not fit to act as next friends of the minors, inasmuch as they had adverse interests. Zamindaries like these in the present case can be better managed by the Court of Wards than by the Administrator-General. I regret the action of the Administrator-General in this matter, especially his proceedings in taking possession of the property of the testator when he must have known that he had no legal right to do so, and when he knew that the Collector was proposing to do so under his statutory power. 12. Looking to the interests of the minors, no adequate case has been made out for the appointment of Mr. Hyde, and the orders appealed against must be discharged with costs both here and in the Court of first instance. 12. Looking to the interests of the minors, no adequate case has been made out for the appointment of Mr. Hyde, and the orders appealed against must be discharged with costs both here and in the Court of first instance. Harington, J. 13. I agree. Stephen, J. I agree.